M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

50C(1), as elaborated above, we see no need to deal with other issues raised in the appeal before us. As of now, those issues are infructuous and do not call for any adjudication at this stage.” 4.1. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition made in the sum of Rs.3

DY CIT DD-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

50C(1), as elaborated above, we see no need to deal with other issues raised in the appeal before us. As of now, those issues are infructuous and do not call for any adjudication at this stage.” 4.1. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition made in the sum of Rs.3

ITO 22(3)(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. MEGHI PARBAT PATEL, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-22(3)(2) Shri Meghji Parbat Patel, 3Rd Floor, Room No.307, Prop. G.D.Enterprises, बनाम/ Tower No.6, Vashi Rly Flat B-5, Plot No.46, Vs. Station Complex, Vashi, Anand Niketan Chs, Navi Mumbai Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Afmpp7902H

68 SOT 110) 5.2 Per contra, the learned D.R. for Revenue strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and contended that section 50C

RADHARAMAN CONSTRUCTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Radharaman Constructions Asst. Cit, Circle – 19(3), Ground Floor, Shri Kunj, Mumbai 3A Altamount Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 026

68 (Bom), it was held that Section 50C will not be applicable while computing capital gains on transfer of leasehold

FARID GULMOHAMED,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Farid Gulmohamed Income Tax Officer C/O. M/S. B.C. Dastur & Co. (Internationla Tax) 3(1) Vs. Reliance Bldg., 3Rd Floor Schindia House, Ballard Estate 269, D.N. Road, Mumbai Mumbai 400038 Pan - Aefpg3094K Appellant Respondent

68 SOT 110) 5.2 Per contra, the learned D.R. for Revenue strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and contended that section 50C

PRATAP RATAN DAS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1272/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

section 50C of the Income Tax 1961. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XXIV, Mumbai , has erred on facts and in law by upholding The assessment made by the ld AO as Agricultural Income ,which was made without revealing the recording of subjective satisfaction Enunciated under the relevant provisions, where material found at the time of assessment

MOHD RAZA AKBERALI GHUGHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2005-06 Mohd Raza Akberali Ito 15(2)(3), Ghugharia, Matru Mandir Tardeo, बनाम/ M/S. N.S. Virani & Co., C.A. S Mumbai-400034 Vs. 28, Bhanushali Bldg. 35, Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabpg3107B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala. (Ar) Shri K. V. Vispure ( Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 27/04/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 01/07/2016

section 50C should be deleted and the exemption of Capital Gain claimed by the Appellant u/s 54 of the I.T. Act, may be accepted and the Assessing Officer may be directed to modify his assessment accordingly.” 3 Mohd Raza Adberali 2. In this case it has been noted that the appeal has been filed late before the Tribunal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI vs. GAURAV INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 ............... Appellant V/S Gaurav Investments, 1St Floor, B & C Block, Tradelink, E-Wing, ……………… Respondent Kamala Mill Compounds, Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400023 Pan: Aadfg0064D

68,990 11,46,31,010 2 Fair Market Value as per 20,08,13,000 12,40,66,000 12,48,65,000 DVO 3 Difference 33,13,000 86,97,010 1,02,33,990 4 Difference in % 1.68% 7.54% 8.93% 5 7. We find that while considering the similar issue regarding the applicability of a higher tolerance

NUTRELA MARKETING P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

68 (Bom). 4.4 The Ld.AR submitted that section 50C deals with transfer of capital assets being, land or building

DCIT 42 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYENDRA KUMAR TRILOKNATH GOYAL, MUMBAI

Accordingly\nwe see no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A) who has deleted the\naddition made by the AO under section 43CA of the Act.\n16.\nIn result, appeal filed by the revenue i...

68 cannot be sustained. In\nview of this discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the\nCIT(A) in allowing the issue in favour of the assessee.\nAddition under section 43CA\n8.\nThe assessee with regard to the addition made by the AO submitted the\nbelow table:\nSr.No.\nFlat No.\nSale Value (Rs.)\nValue

KISHOR HIRA BHANDARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 30(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodshri Kishore Hira Bhandari I.T.O 30(2)(1) Kishore Bhandari Chawl, Mumbai Behind Mamta Medical Store, Vs. Marve Road, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400064

section 50C, he will be at liberty to seek the matter being referred to the DVO for valuation, again as on 29.6.2005, of the said property. As a corollary thereto, the subsequent developments in respect of the property sold (e.g. the conversion of use of land) are to be ignored. It is on this basis that the capital gains

SHRI MOHD. ILYAS ANSARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 23(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Mohd. Ilyas Ansari V. Income Tax Officer - 23(2)(3) Room No. 22, 1St Floor Room No. 110 Building No. 41, Bootwala Manzil Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Navpada, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aexpa7459N (Appellant) (Respondent)

50C(2) of the Act has to be read as "should" so that the provision is not rendered redundant. 14. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions: - (i) CIT v. Sh. Chandra Narain Chaudhri in Income Tax Appeal No.287 of 2011 dated 29.08.2013 of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. (ii) Meghraj

DCIT 1(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. PIROJ PALACE P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue as well as the Cross

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The D.C.I.T. 1(2)(2), M/S Piroj Palace P. Ltd., R. No. 535, 5Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, 134 Nagindas Master Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Fort, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aafcp0219E (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 171/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.857/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Piroj Palace P. Ltd., The D.C.I.T. 1(2)(2), 2Nd Floor, 134 Nagindas Master R. No. 535, 5Th Floor, Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aafcp0219E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri M.V. Rajguru (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2018

Section 50C in the present case. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relying on the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the order of the Mumbai Tribunal rendered in the case of Voltas Ltd. vs. ITO (Mumbai) (2016) 74 taxmann.com

KETAN HIMATLAL MEHTA,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. NFAC, NOT APPLICABLE

Accordingly, order the CIT(A) is overturned and the addition of LTCG of INR.6,30,873/- is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 3 raised by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: making this addition in the Appellate Order. Reasons assigned by him are wrong and insufficient. Therefore, Appellant prays for the deletion the addition of Rs.6,30,873 as confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).

68,32,379/- after making addition of INR.1,35,17,669/- to the returned income of INR.1,33,14,710/-. Being aggrieved, the Assessee challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer before the CIT(A). Vide order dated, 26/03/2024, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of INR.1,35,17,669/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section

KORADIA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 9 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 8/Mum/2020 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Koradia Construction Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- C-402, Gokul Divine, Irla, S V 9(2)(2), Rn. 225, Churchgate, Vs. Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 056 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaack9154E अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : Smt. Smita Verma, Dr स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2021

50C will not apply nor the provision of Section 68 of the Act but to this the provision of Section

IVOR D'MELLO (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE ETTIE B. D'MELLO),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Section 50C of the Act is not attracted as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estate (P.) Ltd. (2017) 389 ITR 68

INDUSIND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LTD ( NOW SUCCEEDED ON AMALGAMATION BY HINDUJA GROUP LTD ),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68,332/-and the resultant difference of Rs.4,28,83,000/-\nwas added to the income.\n\n4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A).\nBefore him, it objected to the DVO report which are summarized by him\nas under:\n1.\nObjection has been raised against addition of 1 per cent per\nannum for value increase

WHITE ROSE HOLDINGS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 White Rose Holdings (India) Pvt.Ltd. Ito-13(3)(2) Room No.227, 2Nd Floor C/O. Mandhania & Associates Vs. 6-A Pil Court Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 111, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan Aaacw0478K (Assessee) (Revenue)

Section 50C was bring to curve the black money and not for the genuine transaction. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions: (1) Devindra Barot [70 taxmann.com 235 (Ahmadabad Trib.)], (2) Smt. D. Anitha [2015] 68